The Paris Attack Debate Thread

[viper37]

The Canadian Dove Brigade says that the majoriy of Muslims living in the developed world are nowhere near extremist status.

they have some weird vision of the world:

[viper37]

It will happen in due time, viper. In due time. Be patient. 3rd and 4th generations of immigrants, in Canada atleast, won't be religious extremists.

with a Federal government promoting exclusion and choosing the rights of fanatics over the rights of the moderates, I have my doubt.  I think we will instead see extreme ghettoisation of these communities, akin to the situation in Europe.  And each subsequent terrorist attack will drive a wedge between our communities, because of the failures of such silly policies.

[Tamas]

Ok case closed then!

Or at the very least you will attempt make a more persuasive argument about why we should fear the Muslims.

You grossly oversimplify my point as well as Berkut's. I think largely because this question is a tool/sideshow of bitter and asinine political struggles in Canada and the US. So I am just done.

[crazy canuck]

Ok case closed then!

Or at the very least you will attempt make a more persuasive argument about why we should fear the Muslims.

You grossly oversimplify my point as well as Berkut's. I think largely because this question is a tool/sideshow of bitter and asinine political struggles in Canada and the US. So I am just done.

You were the one that said the very fabric of French society was at risk.  How is my repeating what you said an oversimplification of your point?  Put another way, if you want to use hyperbole like that, then at least be prepared to back it up with some cogent argument and not just retreat when you get called on it.  An alternative is to admit that your turn of phrase was just hyperbole.

And to clarify, Berkut did not make that argument.

[Berkut]

Yeah, I actually don't think the fabric of any Western society is at risk at all.

In fact, I don't think that Islamic extremism represents any kind of real threat at all...in the long run*.

Reason and rationality will certainly win out - if I have "faith" in anything, I have faith in the eventual triumph of the truth and rational thought over superstition and fear.

However, the cost and pain to get there can be considerable, even monumental. And the human cost in death, oppression, and misery can be extreme.

Someone earlier brought up Communism. In a similar manner, I don't doubt the eventual triumph of the Western liberal ideal over Islamic medieval thinking - in the same fashion that Communism has clearly failed. But here is the thing - even though the failure of Communism is complete, undeniable, and thorough...there are still millions of people living in North Korea under horrific conditions. Thousands die, and millions live in relative misery, even though the conflict itself has long since been resolved.

Islamic extremism has not been defeated yet, and in fact is growing in power, strength, and reach. It's capacity to create truly astonishing levels of human misery before it is finally put in the dustbin of history is, I suspect, considerable.


* - the nasty caveat to this, of course, is technology. Modern technology allows relatively powerless actors the ability to create massive havoc - the dangers in a power like ISIS getting its hands on WMDs is considerable, and the very real and terrifying possibility that they can (and would) use them cannot be understated. it scares the shit out of me that countries like Pakistan have nukes, for example.

[grumbler]

Then we understand the causes of the violence better, and we seek solutions where they might actually exist, rather than where we prefer they exist.

that's what i mean. how do you seek a solution that avoids attacking all of islam if you think islam causes a fundamental problem?

I understand what you mean, but submit that the solution to be sought dos not involve either ignoring the Islamic elements of the violence, nor does it involve attacking all of Islam.  You insist that these are our only choices, and I reject your insistence.

[Martinus]

Then we understand the causes of the violence better, and we seek solutions where they might actually exist, rather than where we prefer they exist.

that's what i mean. how do you seek a solution that avoids attacking all of islam if you think islam causes a fundamental problem?

I understand what you mean, but submit that the solution to be sought dos not involve either ignoring the Islamic elements of the violence, nor does it involve attacking all of Islam.  You insist that these are our only choices, and I reject your insistence.

What's more, the fact that the Western left presents the alternative in this, binary way, will be what leads to it ultimately losing the issue to the right - because more and more people will become convinced that if this is the only alternative, and the left's refusal to take any action is moronic, the right becomes the only sensible choice.

[The Minsky Moment]

What's more, the fact that the Western left presents the alternative in this, binary way, will be what leads to it ultimately losing the issue to the right - because more and more people will become convinced that if this is the only alternative, and the left's refusal to take any action is moronic, the right becomes the only sensible choice.

Right now in the USA, the alternative being proposed by the right is to violate our treaty obligations by putting a nationality qualifier on asylum applications and to keep repeating the two word phrase "Islamic terrorism" over and over on TV and radio talk shows.

My alternative, as a self-proclaimed member of the Western left, would be to let to French invoke the NATO treaty obligation, get some NATO troops in the field alongside the Kurdish-Arab force in the north, and clear Daesh out of the region.  Then we can debate at our leisure about the textual and subtextual messages of the Qur'an.

I leave it you to decide which is more effective.

[Grey Fox]

It will happen in due time, viper. In due time. Be patient. 3rd and 4th generations of immigrants, in Canada atleast, won't be religious extremists.

with a Federal government promoting exclusion and choosing the rights of fanatics over the rights of the moderates, I have my doubt.  I think we will instead see extreme ghettoisation of these communities, akin to the situation in Europe.  And each subsequent terrorist attack will drive a wedge between our communities, because of the failures of such silly policies.

You and I have a very different look at how the Federal government works.

[Martinus]

What's more, the fact that the Western left presents the alternative in this, binary way, will be what leads to it ultimately losing the issue to the right - because more and more people will become convinced that if this is the only alternative, and the left's refusal to take any action is moronic, the right becomes the only sensible choice.

Right now in the USA, the alternative being proposed by the right is to violate our treaty obligations by putting a nationality qualifier on asylum applications and to keep repeating the two word phrase "Islamic terrorism" over and over on TV and radio talk shows.

My alternative, as a self-proclaimed member of the Western left, would be to let to French invoke the NATO treaty obligation, get some NATO troops in the field alongside the Kurdish-Arab force in the north, and clear Daesh out of the region.  Then we can debate at our leisure about the textual and subtextual messages of the Qur'an.

I leave it you to decide which is more effective.

I think there is more in common between our positions than you think. I am simply concerned that LaCroix represents the majority on the left (of which I consider myself a part as well, so would like it to succeed by following reason, not dogma).

[Martinus]

I guess where we differ is that I believe we should ally with Kurds more closely (and the likes of Jordan) but distance ourselves from the Saudis and their ilk. I think the alliance with the House of Saud is one of the more shameful parts of the Western foreign policy right now.

[Martinus]

Also, just to be clear, I never argued against welcoming the refugees. I think we should just be more vocal about our values.

[Admiral Yi]

And the irony is that the Martinus/Yi* view is exactly the narrative the very worst of the terrorists are trying to push - that they represent and reflect the true nature of the religion. And by validating that view, we undermine the very forces necessary to defeat them, and contribute to the cycle of disaffection that the terrorist feed off of.  Daesh aren't stupid - they know they cannot present any real military threat to the West or even threaten the economy, but because they know it will sow panic and fear and the very kind of knee-jerk anti-Islamic xenophobia we see in this thread and in the GOP primary candidates.  It is grist for their mill.

*Leaving out B for now for reasons will address in the next post.

Describing my and other's comments as knee-jerk and xenophobic tells me you are no longer interested in discussing this issue in a civil, adult manner.

[Razgovory]

How long did it take your knee to get to it's present position?  I honestly don't get a lot of your guys position.  You don't want any actual action taken against Muslims you just want them to know their religion is bad?

[Martinus]

How long did it take your knee to get to it's present position?  I honestly don't get a lot of your guys position.  You don't want any actual action taken against Muslims you just want them to know their religion is bad?

No. I want to support moderate Muslims more vocally, and I want our governments to stop coddling up to conservative Muslim countries. There is also an element of reaction to idiot left which believes that vocally opposing female genital mutilation is "islamophobia" and "racism".